[eDebate] ans Stannard

Michael Korcok mmk_savant
Sat Jul 8 11:31:02 CDT 2006


no, i beat #1 by pointing out that almost always i respond rather than provoking.  that included name-calling.  Matt, when i look back at the exchanges that got ugly, almost always the personal attacks started by those i disagree with.  true, i do go after the far left and communists and ideologues and the fringe lunatics, but those aren't PERSONAL.  they aren't "Matt Stannard is a moron".  the PERSONAL insults almost always get started by those others.  this latest for example... you started with PERSONAL i did not respond with PERSONAL you whined anyway.
 
and the NON-PERSONAL works both ways...  without thinking you will write that the administration and George Bush are murderous fascists and then feel hurt when i write that the far left is a bunch of disconnected brats of privilege that have their skulls so far up their sphincters they can't tell night from day.
to your comments: 
 
1) "Is there a threshold between public deliberation/debate and advocating positions we believe in?"  
 
yes.  if you are willing to substantially risk your beliefs to the force of the better argument.  that is not the case for much of the far left:  they have made up their minds and simply CANNOT say anything good about any major Bush policy because they have closed ranks around an ideology that refuses the possibility that the administration makes some solid decisions.  the same plays out in this forum.  
 
but that is just the threshold question.  IDEALLY, you are willing to fairly and aggressively switch sides and advocate the other side's positions as aggressively as you can.  then you are clearly DEBATING rather than pushing your disastrous view of the world.  tell you what.  
here is a way to drive home the point:  you defend the Bush administration policy toward North Korea and I will attack it.
 
2) "Since when have you ever expressed a willingness, at least in this forum, to deliberate rather than advocate?"
 
frequently. almost always i present arguments and evidence on behalf of particular positions rather than just stringing together lurid characterizations.  
although i tend to present them forcefully, i am rarely certain of my conclusions and have often modified my views when there are well-argued answers.too, debate is full of the fringe left.  so when i present moderate and middle-of-the-road ANSWERS it looks like i have staked out particular positions when mostly I just ANSWER the lunacy.  mostly.
 
3) "Are you sure the right only does this when they are OUT of power?"
 
burp
 
4) Stannard's characterization of the Bush administration from the viewpoint of a lifelong "democratic socialist"
 
does not come to the public table in good faith 
they grossly manipulate intelligence data
in some cases create it out of whole cloth 
when they are neither honest nor rational about their pre-war or in-war assessments 
when they resort to dirty tricks against those who publicly question or criticize them 
when they rely on enthymemes rather than transparent arguments to make their case
when their conclusion was actually reached years in advance
but you forgot... 
 
WHEN THEY ARE SATAN INCARNATE!!!  FASCISTS!!!  GRMPH  BLUGGGG  ARGGHHHHHH!
 
right.  public debate and deliberation are not possible because your ideological blinders make it impossible.  rather than deciding the merits of public policy based on the specific evidence and arguments involved, you have pre-decided that the Bush Administration is evil.   why in the hell should they debate you publically, rather than, you know, concluding that you are an irrelevant ideologue and marginalizing you?
 
5) "You seem far more concerned about "harassment" from people who will probably never be in power in this country, than about abuse of institutional power.  And that really amazes me."
 
"probably never be in power in this country".  funny stuff, Stannard... only "probably" huh?  still harboring dreams of the revolution?  stocking up on those snazzy red star hats?
debate takes 2.  the far left needs to do a lot of confidence-building that it is capable of debate and deliberation or they will forever function as the boogeymen that Hannity and Colmes trot out to show mom and pop in Kansas just how insane you all are.
 
prove "abuse of institutional power".
 
Michael Korcok
 
_________________________________________________________________
Try Live.com - your fast, personalized homepage with all the things you care about in one place.
http://www.live.com/getstarted
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060708/b0755b2c/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list